Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Now Known As Omaxe Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Nitin Saxena

$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8193/2025
Date of Decision : 14.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

GARV BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. NOW KNOWN AS OMAXE
GARV BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr Karanjot Singh Mainee,
Advocate.
versus

NITIN SAXENA
.....Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“ A) Pass a writ of mandamus, or any other writ as may be applicable and
set aside the Order dated 16.05.2025 as passed by the Ld. NCDRC in
NC/DN/2/2025;
B) Direct the Ld. NCDRC to decide the RP bearing NC/DN/2/2025
bearing title „Garv Buildtech Pvt Ltd (now known as "Omaxe Garv
Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.) V. Nitin Saxena‟ on merits; ”
2. The petitioner, M/s Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Omaxe
Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.), is a company engaged in real estate development.
The respondent, Mr. Nitin Saxena, is an individual who had booked a
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 1 of 8

residential plot in the petitioner's project „Omaxe Metro City‟ at Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh.
3. Disputes having arisen, the respondent filed Consumer Complaint No.
CC/111/2023 before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission-II, Delhi (DCDRC), seeking possession of the plot along with
damages and compensation.
4. The petitioner filed its written statement on 14.06.2023. Subsequently,
during the pendency of the complaint, certain events occurred, including an
offer of possession dated 27.07.2023 and cancellation of allotment dated
05.02.2024. The petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC seeking amendment of its written statement to bring these
subsequent events on record.
5. The said application was dismissed by the DCDRC vide order dated
30.05.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No. before the
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) under
Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter „the
Consumer Act‟). The SCDRC dismissed the said revision petition vide order
dated 14.01.2025.
6. The petitioner then approached the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC) by way of a revision petition, challenging
the order of the SCDRC. The NCDRC, relying upon its earlier decision in
1
Vivo Mobile India Private Limited vs. SMT. Mavuram Sujatha and Ors. ,
dismissed the said revision petition as not maintainable. Hence, the present
writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 2 of 8

to various facts and circumstances and tries to emphasise that under Section
58(1)(b) of the Consumer Act, there is no such embargo for the NCDRC to
read the word „ in any consumer dispute ‟ narrowly. He has explained the
provisions of Section 58(1) of the Consumer Act and submits that in
erstwhile Act, the provisions of Section 21 were para materia . He further
draws the attention of the Court to the decision passed by the Supreme Court
2
in the case of Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani and another
decision passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority through its V.C. Ghaziabad vs. R.C. Saxena &
3
Ors .
8. Additionally, he points out to the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by
the NCDRC in Vivo Mobile India Private Limited (supra) and submits that
the decision passed in the Ghaziabad Development Authority, particularly,
paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the same, has been noted by the NCDRC, and
following findings have been rendered:
“ 44. We have considered the said submission as well, but the judgement of
a High Court is binding on us. If there is any error or otherwise in the
same, it cannot be corrected by us. Learned Counsel, however, urged that,
as against this, the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Ghaziabad Development Authority (Supra) is also binding, and therefore
this Commission should follow the same.
45. The Allahabad High Court held that a Writ Petition would not be
maintainable in the wake of a remedy available under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under Section 21(b) against an order
passed by the State Commission as there is no such bar. The said position
of law has been arrived at with no reference to the orders passed by other
High Courts, and the Orissa High Court has proceeded to hold that the
National Commission would have no jurisdiction if the order impugned
before it has been passed in the exercise of appellate or revisional power

1
Revision Petition No. 1879 of 2024
2
AIR 2019 SC 2290
3
2011 SCC OnLine All 2211
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 3 of 8

exercised by the State Commission under section 17(1)(b). This ratio has
been highlighted in paragraph 23 of the reported judgement already
quoted hereinabove.
46. While following the law on precedents, it is clear that the judgment in
the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (Supra) nowhere notices or
considers the ratio of the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court or
Bombay High Court referred to above. The recital in the order of the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in paragraph 4 is to the following
effect.
“4. The impugned order dated 9.8.2010 has been passed by the
State Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and there is
no bar of second revision. As such the order passed by the State
Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can very well be
subjected to revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission
under section 21(b) of the Act.”
47. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is, however, right in his submission
that the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Bombay High
Court arose out of orders passed under Section 27 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 whereas this was not the issue before the Allahabad
High Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (Supra). It is
also correct that the said judgment has not been noticed or considered by
the Orissa High Court in the 2015 judgment in the case of Oriental Bank
of Commerce (Supra). Nonetheless, the judgment of the Orissa High Court
was dealing with an issue of impleadment in a pending complaint and
paragraph 23 extracted hereinabove categorially holds that a revision
before this Commission would not lie against the revisional order of the
State Commission, which once again was an observation in relation to an
order passed in a pending complaint. We find the said decision to have
more appropriately dealt with the contentions for arriving at the said
conclusion. For the same reason also the observation made by the larger
Bench of this Commission in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce
(Supra) would also not be able to override the decision of the Orissa High
Court
.”
9. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by the respondent, who
appears in person.
10. He submits that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of
revision before the State Commission under Section 47(1)(b) of the
Consumer Act, and the Act provides no further remedy either by way of
appeal or a second revision against an order passed by the State Commission
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 4 of 8

in its revisional jurisdiction. He relies on the NCDRC's decision in Vivo
4
Mobile India Private Limited v. Smt. Mavuram Sujatha and Ors. , wherein
it was held that a second revision petition is not maintainable under Section
58(1)(b).
11. The respondent also points to the consistent view of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Megacity Builders v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes
5
Redressal Commission , the Bombay High Court in R.B. Upadhyay v. State
6
Commission for Consumer Disputes , and the Orissa High Court in
7
Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Minarva Dash & Ors. , all of which have
held that no second revision lies against an order passed by the State
Commission in its revisional jurisdiction. In Oriental Bank (supra) , the
court held,

“17. Therefore, the order of the State Commission is appealable before
the National Commission as per Section 19 of the Act which clearly
stipulates that any person aggrieved by any order made by the State
Commission in exercise of power conferred on it by sub-clause(i) of
clause(a) of Section 17 may prefer an appeal before the National
Commission. Sub clause (i) of clause(a) of Section-17 empowers the State
Commission to hear original complaints. Thus, only the order passed by
the learned State Commission while hearing the complaint petition under
Section 17(1)(a)(i) is appealable before the National Commission under
Section 19 of the Act.”

“23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, from the clear and
literal language of Section 21(b) of the Act, it can be construed that
revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if some dispute is pending or
has been decided by the State Commission. In other words, the National
Commission would have no jurisdiction if the impugned order is passed
in exercise of the appellate power or revisional power exercised by the

4
Revision Petition No. 1879 of 2024
5
MANU/AP/0768/2003
6
MANU/MH/0615/2010
7
MANU/OR/0401/2015

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 5 of 8

State Commission under Section 17(1)(b). The power under Section 21(b)
is in respect of complaint filed before the State Commission.”

12. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties and has
bestowed its due consideration to the provisions of Section 58(1)(b) of the
Consumer Act.
13. In the instant case, the petitioner had already availed the remedy of
revision before the State Commission. The original order was passed by the
District Commission and the complaint remains pending before the District
Commission. Having exercised the revisional power, the State Commission
had dismissed the petition of revision and, therefore, the NCDRC was
approached in the second Revision.
14. The State Commission was exercising its revisional jurisdiction under
Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Act, against a District Commission‟s
order, and was not exercising its original or appellate jurisdiction. While the
Consumer Act provides a second appeal under Section 51(2) against
appellate orders of a State Commission, it provides no statutory remedy
either by way of appeal or a further revision against an order passed by the
State Commission in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
15. If the said provision is read in its right perspective, it would indicate
that it applies only to a consumer dispute pending before or decided by a
State Commission. It, thus, obviously refers to an original complaint, not a
revision petition.
16. The view taken by the NCDRC seems to be strictly in accordance
with the Consumer Act. There does not seem to be any scope for
entertaining second revision by the NCDRC in a pending complaint before
the State Commission. The Court, thus, finds no justification to interfere
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 6 of 8

with the impugned order dated 16.05.2025.
17. Even otherwise, the scope of interference under Article 226 and 227
has been well settled and is strictly limited. A Constitution Bench of the
8
Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath held:
“12. This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is to be
exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep
the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors.”

18. The Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar
9
Patil, after tracing the history of Article 227, held as under:

“62(c). High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power
of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with
the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of
this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal
subordinate to it.”

“62(h). In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot
interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another
view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a
possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly
exercised.”

10
19. This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Seth v. Lalit Kumar Seth ,
held:

“14. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is neither appellate nor revisional. It is merely supervisory in
nature. The High Court, acting under Article 227, supervises the
functioning of the courts below, while exercising their judicial powers. If,
therefore, the courts below are functioning in a manner which calls for
correction in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in the
court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court would

8
AIR 1954 SC 215
9
(2010) 8 SCC 329
10
2022:DHC:001451
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 7 of 8

interfere; else, the court would hold its hands.”

“18. Even more restricted, therefore, would be the scope of interference
by the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with an order passed by the court
below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. It is only where the court
below has exercised its jurisdiction in a palpably erroneous manner, as
would call for correction by the High Court, as a supervisory court, that
the High Court would act under Article 227.”

20. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the
instant petition stands dismissed.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 14, 2026
aks/aa.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:14:23
W.P.(C) 8193/2025 Page 8 of 8